At the very minimum we can require that candidates for public office have some qualifications, no signs of psychosis, no psychopathic tendencies and no criminal record. And call it discriminatory if you will, but Zionists do not belong in the government or armed services anymore than Red Guards or Jim Jones. That includes Jewish atheist Zionists and Christian fundamentalist Zionists.

Mark, and that means that Romney should be out of the race IMMEDIATELY. He is a fundamentalist zionist and his place is in Utah preaching to cows. Or in Washington answering to the Grand Jury about his offshore bank accounts and tax evasion.

Mark & Boulvardier, I hope your comments are not what passes for intellectual discourse and commentary in your parts of the world. Mitt Romney is a "fundamentalist Zionist?" What in the world are you smoking?

Romney belongs in the White House NOW! ...after it is fumagated with the hazmat folks. And for gods sake, we can only hope the first thing Mitt my man will do is get rid of those gold, tacky drapes! I mean my god....

Republicans would like to talk about jobs and the economy. The Democrats, chagrined at their complete mishandling of the economy the past 4 years, choose to bring up race at every turn to divert attention from the real issues. Who are the real racists, the ones who can't stop talking about race, or the ones who didn't think race is even important enough to discuss?

I assume you are talking about my post about illegals. Go reread my post. I didn't say a single word about hispanics (or any race) in my post, there are many hispanics/africans/asians/eastern europeans who came here LEGALLY and do well. My post only referred to illegals(of any race). You are the one who deduced that I was talking about hispanics and proceeded to call me a racist. It's funny how people who automatically connect everything to race are often the first to accuse others of being racist.

If the Aurora shooter were black, the media would've been all over his race - black rage caused by racism, yada yada. But because he was white, race was never mentioned. He was seen as an individual.

This is the saddest truth -- if you are member of a minority, the liberal left(who dominate the media, academia, politics) will never allow you to exist as an individual. Everything you do, whether good or bad, will be immediately attributed to your race, or that other euphemism for race these days, "culture". Only whites are allowed to exist as individuals. When an asian kid does well, it's immediately attributed to his culture, the culture that values education, parents who emphasize education...nothing about what he did as a person, the hard work, the focus and determination. Similarly, if a black kid does poorly at school, it's immediately attributed to his culture, or racism...black culture doesn't value education, racism keeps blacks in ghettos with black teachers etc, nothing about him as a person - laziness, lack of motivation. But if a white kid does well, it's his determination, his grit, his hard work yada yada - it's all about him the person, not his race or culture.

This is why I think it is highly hypocritical for liberals to accuse others of being racist. They are often the very people who attribute *everything* to race. Just look at how much our media discusses race, the more liberal the media, the more race is discussed, in every subject...education, sports, welfare, unemployment, entertainment, all social issues. Just about the only subject that the liberal left hasn't infused with race is the WEATHER, but give them time.

By nature, people likes to be around the same race and even sex of people. It creates a stuctural oppression in America, because since most elite are already white, they are less like to promote or pick non-white or non-female candidates for a job and other opportunities. That is why, the author supports affirmative action, prevent these involuntary structural oppression.

"Eventually I realised that actions that are individually non-coercive can add up to stable patterns of behaviour that are systematically or structurally coercive, depriving some individuals of their rightful liberty. In fact, rights-violating structures or patterns of behaviour are excellent examples of Hayekian spontaneous orders—of phenomena that are the product of human action, but not of human design. This shift has led me to see racism and sexism themselves as threats to liberty."

Without a doubt racism is wrong and harms society. I don't think most people would disagree with that. What most people like me have a problem with is when we enact policies like race based affirmative action that over-compensates for past wrongs by giving one group unfair advantage over other groups. Not only is this kind of policy divisive(by encouraging us to see people through the color of their skin rather than as indivduals), but in the long run, it ends up causing more harm than good. Why should blacks/hispanics study hard like everyone else when they know they don't have to? In addition, it makes everyone else view black/hispanic accomplishment with suspicion, which is sad and unfair for those who really do qualify on merit.

IMO, the decision to enact affirmative action was initially correct. No group was abused like blacks; 200 years of slavery and jim crow had a disasterous impact on black culture and did far more damage than most of us realize.

The problem came when the Left realized that race-baiting was an effective political tactic; a method of winning elections and holding power. The first step was to basically claim that every minority group (everyone but white males) was a "minority" and to claim that they were all...ALL of them...victims of racism. This gave the Left a moral pretext to expand affirmative action give-aways to every demographic group, and provided an effective platform for endless race-baiting.

The term for this is Identity Politics. While it is an effective political tactic for the Left it is incredibly corrosive and has lead to a balkanization of the electorate. It's not going to stop either; as long as the tactic works, the Left will continue to use it.

Your statements are highly problematic. For a good part of this country's history it was illegal for blacks to move freely, live freely, marry, associate, READ. We were farm equipment. Tired? Tough. Sick. Throw IT away and bring me another. How do you "over-compensate" for centuries of that? Not to mention the generations of "Let's steal from/humiliate/kill those black people with impunity". It was government policy to MISTREAT black people.

Why do you assume ALL black people don't want to study/work hard? What are you basing that on? Why do you discount not only the lasting effects of slavery and Jim Crow and prejudice but the reality of white privilege which grants a persistent advantage to you at the expense of even other whites forget about people of color?

Why is it MY problem if YOUR ignorance casts doubt on my achievements? I humbly suggest a bit of self-reflection.

Sadly, charges of "racism" seems to be the last tool to keep American black voters on the Democrat Party's voting reservation. Of course, Democrats and liberals have so degraded the meaning and impact of the word racism by accusing every political opponent a racist as to make the word almost meaningless. Mitt Romney a racist? Riiiiight. Last desperate move to keep 95%+ of black voters on the Democrat Party's voting plantation. Win at all costs----absolutely shameless.

"Eventually I realised that actions that are individually non-coercive can add up to stable patterns of behaviour that are systematically or structurally coercive, depriving some individuals of their rightful liberty." - Nope, you had it right when you were younger, son. You need to study "Prisoner's Dilemma" game theory. I cannot summarize in a paragraph, but a stable pattern is "Tit for Tat" (eye-for-an-eye) cooperation (Golden Rule) rather than mutual antagonism (racism or perhaps Autarky). Hence if everybody is a racist, racism pays, but if a sizable percentage of people are not racists, and not being a racist pays (more money, etc) then there will not be racism. Since science says all people are roughly equal, then casting your net wider and not being a racist will pay, and this "sizable percentage" will eventually become the dominant paradigm. Sorry I can't be more specific due to space limitations but read the books on Prisoners Dilemma.

Your claim that Mr. Sides supports the idea of an even split between racists in both parties is incorrect. Quoting Mr. Sides:

"In sum, I don’t think Tabarrok is technically correct to say that “racists are split evenly between the two parties.” At least by these measures, the split is not exactly even. But he is absolutely correct to say that neither party has a monopoly on racists."

However, delving a little deeper into the statistics that Mr. Sides quotes, we find a fairly strong correlation between for example people who think blacks are hardworking and people who self-identify as Democrats. For example, 58% of those who view blacks as very hard working are Democrats, versus 29% are Republicans.

Combining the statistics (something Mr. Sides fails to do), it is a reasonable hypothesis that, while neither party has a majority of racists in it, the group of racists who are Republicans is substantially larger than the group of racists who are Democrats.

Seems to make sense, since the Republican Party, pace the US Civil War, is the party of rich whites and statistically, rich whites got by without help from government, contrary to blacks, for historical and statistical reasons, not because of innate ability.

Actually, the Republican Party was historically the party of northern and western middle-class whites. For the last 30 years or so, the GOP has enjoyed the support of 60 to 70% of all white voters. Clearly, there not all "racists" or anything of the sort, but most are not inclined to vote for a liberal African-American who is bent on expanding government and raising taxes. Sorry, but economics and ideology trump race every time.

As for rich whites all being Republican, one only has to look at Hollywood, Warren Buffett, and George Soros to know that's a falsehood. The truly rich in America tend to white AND liberal.

Phew! Maybe one day you will discover more "structural coercions", such as "income inequality" for instance.But you're not that quick becauseyou seem to need to esatblish reality on solid ideological foundations.

Accusations of racism by liberal Democrats are equivalent accusations of witchcraft centuries ago. As soon as the accusation is made one is convicted. Denying the accusation only proves that one is a liar as well as a racist. Proven accusations of racist genocide against liberal Democrats, on the other hand, are automatically false, especially if the accused call themselves Jewish.
I will risk it nevertheless. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was willing to provoke the bombing of Pearl Harbor so Hitler would declare war on the United States and thus save Stalin's workers paradise. Who cares about the Japanese and American goyim victims? After the war, Truman carried out Henry Morgenthau's plan to murder 80% of Germans. It was necessary to cancel the genocide at the nine million mark to prevent the Soviets from over running Europe. In the fifties the Democrats were more concerned with McCarthyism than the deaths of millions of Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese at the hands of communists. In the late sixties and early seventies Democrats did everything possible to bring about a communist victory in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
But it was not enough. A coup d'etat against President Nixon was still necessary for a communist victory. Cambodians will be pleased to know that the Democrats and the liberal media saved America from Nixonian fascism. Twenty nine years after the Vietnam war, the Democrats nominated John Kerry whose lies about American atrocities in Vietnam would disgrace any communist. Then the mass media crucified the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
After the failed Kerry coup, the Democrats finally gave up on communism and turned to Zionism. In this respect, the Democrats are no worse than the Republicans and probably better. But what does it matter? The only reason for maintaining the Democratic Republican parties is to maintain the illusion that nothing has changed, and the corpse of the USA is in perfect health.

YOU ARE PREJUDICED.
by Chad Powers
Jewish Tribal Review
October 30, 2002

The man of genuine "prejudice" is the one who slams the door shut to an inquiry of any community's collective allegiance and principles. The man of true "bias" is the one who refuses the innate right of anyone to criticize ANYTHING. The man of true "intolerance" militantly demands only the illusory reflections of Smiley Smile buttons in the testy world of social and political relations. Only a monolithic "bigot" fears public inquiry of that which he believes, and that which his commune -- even with hallowed exceptions-- definitively heralds.

After 1964, few Dixiecrat elected officials became GOP---those that did were still relatively young in the political sense and hailed from areas with substantial black prescence. Keep in mind, there was never a movement of GOP into Dems, unless we're talking about black Americans, many of whom start switching over in1960 when JFK took the extra step to have his Dixiecrat cronies release dr. King from jail. Blacks hane been Dems since FDR, when the Dixiecrats were at the height of their power as Malcolm x famously pointed out in his ballot or bullet speech.

Dems had to attract black vote bc not to so would've crushed that party in urban centers and some areas in the south. Complicating this picture is the religious crowd, another used political group.

Until 1984, the Dems ran a ticket of a northern progressive and southern populist/Dixiecrat on the wh ticket. It'll be a cold day before GOP put a true southerner on the ticket.....the moderate elites wouldn't have it.

Considering it is the Democrat party which was pro-slave, created segregation, kept segregation going for 100 years, followed that with so called affirmative action and still to this day insists that everyone be classified and considered by race in the way they dish out their welfare and how they promote class warfare, it seems pretty clear to me where the racism is and always has been. Since the democrats have been the defacto rulers of america for 85 of the last 100 years, the government itself is basically racist. Try filling out any government form without being forced to identify your race. In fact, it is basically illegal for anyone or any busines in the country to even ask what your race is let alone actually use race to provide or deny something. However, the government is the only entity in America legally able to provide or deny based on race.

The only legalized racism really left in America is perpetrated by the Government of America and since most of the government was created by the Democrats, I think Americans need to start waking up to who the racists really are. They certainly are not republicans or libertarians. Some of the first african american mayors and governors after slavery ended, were republican. Where the only defacto coup in america was perpetrated by racist democrats who deposed by force a town council and mayor who were voted in. The then democrat federal government just looked the other way.

Now, I wont make the claim that democrats are as a party racists, like they make the claim about republicans. Most people in america are in fact NOT racist. However, the actions of the Democrat politicians since 1861 have been specifically racist or had the effect of dividing people by race, if you consider affirmative action as an example. It is amazing how the democrats created segregation as a means to have an excuse to divide peoples and 100 years later, they were forced to end segregation and they replaced it with affirmative action, which was effectively the same thing as segregation.

Either way, the one thing the democrats can be blamed for is misinformation if not out right lying. They make it seem like it was the republicans who started the civil war to keep slaves and it was republicans who created segregation and today just want to go back to that insanity. All totally historically inaccurate. Sorry democrats but when your party has a long history of racism and dividing people and you have control of the government for 85 years, with at least 25 years of that time with total filibuster proof control, it is you who should be rightly blamed for the racism of the past and your continued control of the government and promotion of racial divisions and class divisions through the way you make laws and run the government.

Amen. Well stated. Liberals simply can't think beyond race on any subject -- education, welfare, medicaid, immigration, class warfare. To them, EVERYTHING is about race! Not only that, but they are complete hypocrites when it comes to race. Name one prominent self-proclaimed black loving white Democrat who is married to a non-white? Just one. Bill Clinton? Joe Biden? Al Gore? Enough said.

The Republican Party has intentionally used racial resentment for political gain for the past forty years. There is no question about that. Republican political operatives beginning with Kevin Phillips (no longer a Republican) have admitted using this strategy. The author is living in a fantasy world.

The reality is that there is still a difference. Many blue collar democratic workers, I have worked with over the years, are resentful at times towards minorities because they are ignorant of history. However, they also recognize that discrimination is wrong and so although they may have negative views, try to compensate for them. I do not see the same in the Republican party. What I see is what Mill talked about in On Liberty; majority groups blaming minorities while portraying themselves as being morally superior.